https://matuakahurangi.com/p/the-curtain-falls-on-the-cult-of
Brutal maybe, but fair.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:38:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe initial response reflected the speed of transmission being
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://matuakahurangi.com/p/the-curtain-falls-on-the-cult-of
Brutal maybe, but fair.
That article may be a fair review of Ardern's book but it is not a
fair review of her leadership as PM.
I give her the benefit of the doubt. While she at times presided over >substantial restrictions on our freedoms, this was done as part of
standard practice in response to pandemics. It was also done on the
advice of eminent health professionals. No-one has credibly
demonstrated Ardern had ill intent, and indeed what she did was mostly >supported by the opposition parties at the time (note that NZF were
not in Parliament at the time).
When we pass judgment we do so withThe releasing of the lockdowns was closely linked to more complete
hindsight that she never had at the time - Labour eventually decided
that Covid19 did not have morbidity effects that justified lockdowns
and other means of restricting our freedoms.
Now Ardern did exhibit poor judgment (banning offshore fossil fuel >exploration) but all Prime Ministers do this and take theThe previous government under Key/English had not been able to get
consequences.
Labour also enacted major reforms of the way water
services would be delivered nationwide and the accompanying removal of >democratic control on this - with no mention of their intent prior to
the 2020 election.
This is part of the reason I oppose extending Parliamentary terms. It
is also the reason why Labour cannot be trusted while the senior MPs
from the 2020-2023 government are seeking re-election. Ardern was
just a part of this and has been dealt with by the voters in the
appropriate manner.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:04:25 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:38:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe initial response reflected the speed of transmission being
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://matuakahurangi.com/p/the-curtain-falls-on-the-cult-of
Brutal maybe, but fair.
That article may be a fair review of Ardern's book but it is not a
fair review of her leadership as PM.
I give her the benefit of the doubt. While she at times presided over >>substantial restrictions on our freedoms, this was done as part of
standard practice in response to pandemics. It was also done on the
advice of eminent health professionals. No-one has credibly
demonstrated Ardern had ill intent, and indeed what she did was mostly >>supported by the opposition parties at the time (note that NZF were
not in Parliament at the time).
observed in China, and as you correctly state the initial response was
in accordance with advice from public health experts. We saw much
higher rates in cities like New York and Rome - with pictures of mass
graves being formed by bulldozers in the USA. As evidence accumulated
it became clear that transmission was more rapid than previous
epidemics (eg SARS), but fatalities lower; the NZ response became one
of keeping infections low through lock downs until vaccines became
available - with the success of the lock downs however making some
other countries getting slightly higher priority than NZ for getting
initial mass doses for vaccination. The election results in October
that year indicate widespread support at that stage for the Covid
response - Labour was able to govern alone, and NZ First lost all of
its seats. The subsidies for businesses led to very few companies
folding and a return to previous GDP levels more quickly than most
other countries - as well as much lower deaths than other countries.
There were however a range of issues that led to a very divisive 2023 >campaign, with massive spending by ACT and its Atlas connections on
such things as the fake Groundswell "protests" supported by the
Taxpayers Union.
When we pass judgment we do so withThe releasing of the lockdowns was closely linked to more complete
hindsight that she never had at the time - Labour eventually decided
that Covid19 did not have morbidity effects that justified lockdowns
and other means of restricting our freedoms.
vaccine coverage - morbidity did justify lockdowns for communities
that had low vaccination rates.
The previous government under Key/English had not been able to get
Now Ardern did exhibit poor judgment (banning offshore fossil fuel >>exploration) but all Prime Ministers do this and take the
consequences.
tenders adequate to cover costs, and there had been no finds to
justify higher tenders from the industry. Essentially this is just
noise; no company wants to pay the costs of drilling when there is
little chance of finding oil . . ., and no government wants to meet
the costs of cleanup if a foreign tenderer just walks away . . .
Labour also enacted major reforms of the way water
services would be delivered nationwide and the accompanying removal of >>democratic control on this - with no mention of their intent prior to
the 2020 election.
The current government has just passed the cost on to local
authorities - it is bizarre to hear prospective mayoral candidates
from the Right still talking about "Keeping Rates Low" as a campaign
feature - meantime clean water is needing a lot of money that 15%
rates rises is not enough to fund; and in some areas exempting farmers
from the effects of their water pollution is raising the costs for
towns and cities ''downstream" . . .
This is part of the reason I oppose extending Parliamentary terms. It
is also the reason why Labour cannot be trusted while the senior MPs
from the 2020-2023 government are seeking re-election. Ardern was
just a part of this and has been dealt with by the voters in the >>appropriate manner.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:15:15 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>For example there is strong evidence from government sources and international documents proving they knew the vaccine couldn't stop transmission, but still used the “protect others” line to manipulate public behaviour.
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:04:25 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:38:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe initial response reflected the speed of transmission being
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://matuakahurangi.com/p/the-curtain-falls-on-the-cult-of
Brutal maybe, but fair.
That article may be a fair review of Ardern's book but it is not a
fair review of her leadership as PM.
I give her the benefit of the doubt. While she at times presided over >>>substantial restrictions on our freedoms, this was done as part of >>>standard practice in response to pandemics. It was also done on the >>>advice of eminent health professionals. No-one has credibly
demonstrated Ardern had ill intent, and indeed what she did was mostly >>>supported by the opposition parties at the time (note that NZF were
not in Parliament at the time).
observed in China, and as you correctly state the initial response was
in accordance with advice from public health experts. We saw much
higher rates in cities like New York and Rome - with pictures of mass >>graves being formed by bulldozers in the USA. As evidence accumulated
it became clear that transmission was more rapid than previous
epidemics (eg SARS), but fatalities lower; the NZ response became one
of keeping infections low through lock downs until vaccines became >>available - with the success of the lock downs however making some
other countries getting slightly higher priority than NZ for getting >>initial mass doses for vaccination. The election results in October
that year indicate widespread support at that stage for the Covid
response - Labour was able to govern alone, and NZ First lost all of
its seats. The subsidies for businesses led to very few companies
folding and a return to previous GDP levels more quickly than most
other countries - as well as much lower deaths than other countries.
There were however a range of issues that led to a very divisive 2023 >>campaign, with massive spending by ACT and its Atlas connections on
such things as the fake Groundswell "protests" supported by the
Taxpayers Union.
When we pass judgment we do so withThe releasing of the lockdowns was closely linked to more complete
hindsight that she never had at the time - Labour eventually decided
that Covid19 did not have morbidity effects that justified lockdowns
and other means of restricting our freedoms.
vaccine coverage - morbidity did justify lockdowns for communities
that had low vaccination rates.
The previous government under Key/English had not been able to get
Now Ardern did exhibit poor judgment (banning offshore fossil fuel >>>exploration) but all Prime Ministers do this and take the
consequences.
tenders adequate to cover costs, and there had been no finds to
justify higher tenders from the industry. Essentially this is just
noise; no company wants to pay the costs of drilling when there is
little chance of finding oil . . ., and no government wants to meet
the costs of cleanup if a foreign tenderer just walks away . . .
If I were to adopt a ruse you frequently make I would congratulate you
on agreeing with me. But I did not and do not. The ban was a
'captains call' which you are now claiming was not needed. It was
made without consultation even within the Labour Caucus and
illustrates an 'I know best' trait in Ardern.
Labour also enacted major reforms of the way water
services would be delivered nationwide and the accompanying removal of >>>democratic control on this - with no mention of their intent prior to
the 2020 election.
The current government has just passed the cost on to local
authorities - it is bizarre to hear prospective mayoral candidates
from the Right still talking about "Keeping Rates Low" as a campaign >>feature - meantime clean water is needing a lot of money that 15%
rates rises is not enough to fund; and in some areas exempting farmers
from the effects of their water pollution is raising the costs for
towns and cities ''downstream" . . .
However the control of what is to be done resides where it always
should remain - with democratically-elected local bodies, paid for by >ratepayers as each local body decides is best. Where I live we prefer
local control by elected councilors in setting water rates. Every
such local body is required to submit a plan and my council has just >published theirs.
This is part of the reason I oppose extending Parliamentary terms. It
is also the reason why Labour cannot be trusted while the senior MPs
from the 2020-2023 government are seeking re-election. Ardern was
just a part of this and has been dealt with by the voters in the >>>appropriate manner.
--
Crash McBash
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:It was a direct result of a lack of interest in tenders, a lack of
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:15:15 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:04:25 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:38:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The initial response reflected the speed of transmission being
https://matuakahurangi.com/p/the-curtain-falls-on-the-cult-of
Brutal maybe, but fair.
That article may be a fair review of Ardern's book but it is not a
fair review of her leadership as PM.
I give her the benefit of the doubt. While she at times presided over >>>>substantial restrictions on our freedoms, this was done as part of >>>>standard practice in response to pandemics. It was also done on the >>>>advice of eminent health professionals. No-one has credibly >>>>demonstrated Ardern had ill intent, and indeed what she did was mostly >>>>supported by the opposition parties at the time (note that NZF were
not in Parliament at the time).
observed in China, and as you correctly state the initial response was
in accordance with advice from public health experts. We saw much
higher rates in cities like New York and Rome - with pictures of mass >>>graves being formed by bulldozers in the USA. As evidence accumulated
it became clear that transmission was more rapid than previous
epidemics (eg SARS), but fatalities lower; the NZ response became one
of keeping infections low through lock downs until vaccines became >>>available - with the success of the lock downs however making some
other countries getting slightly higher priority than NZ for getting >>>initial mass doses for vaccination. The election results in October
that year indicate widespread support at that stage for the Covid >>>response - Labour was able to govern alone, and NZ First lost all of
its seats. The subsidies for businesses led to very few companies
folding and a return to previous GDP levels more quickly than most
other countries - as well as much lower deaths than other countries. >>>There were however a range of issues that led to a very divisive 2023 >>>campaign, with massive spending by ACT and its Atlas connections on
such things as the fake Groundswell "protests" supported by the
Taxpayers Union.
When we pass judgment we do so withThe releasing of the lockdowns was closely linked to more complete >>>vaccine coverage - morbidity did justify lockdowns for communities
hindsight that she never had at the time - Labour eventually decided >>>>that Covid19 did not have morbidity effects that justified lockdowns >>>>and other means of restricting our freedoms.
that had low vaccination rates.
The previous government under Key/English had not been able to get >>>tenders adequate to cover costs, and there had been no finds to
Now Ardern did exhibit poor judgment (banning offshore fossil fuel >>>>exploration) but all Prime Ministers do this and take the
consequences.
justify higher tenders from the industry. Essentially this is just
noise; no company wants to pay the costs of drilling when there is
little chance of finding oil . . ., and no government wants to meet
the costs of cleanup if a foreign tenderer just walks away . . .
If I were to adopt a ruse you frequently make I would congratulate you
on agreeing with me. But I did not and do not. The ban was a
'captains call' which you are now claiming was not needed. It was
made without consultation even within the Labour Caucus and
illustrates an 'I know best' trait in Ardern.
For example there is strong evidence from government sources and international >documents proving they knew the vaccine couldn't stop transmission, but still >used the “protect others” line to manipulate public behaviour.Of course they knew that the vaccine would not stop transmission - but
Crash I respect what you have said here. However I am convinced, as are many, >that Ardern and others in the government at that time did not make good >decisions based on actual know;ledge and official opinions they were given and >were available.
It is not just hidsight, there were those at the time that questioned the >science that was inaccurately used. For instance above concerning >transmission,and "masks stop transmission", 2 metres distancing helps and >other ill considered and scientifically unuppported notions. There was also no >attempt that was made public to balance the impact of the lockdows against the >effect of the illness - there was time to do that and it was not done.
Labour also enacted major reforms of the way water
services would be delivered nationwide and the accompanying removal of >>>>democratic control on this - with no mention of their intent prior to >>>>the 2020 election.
The current government has just passed the cost on to local
authorities - it is bizarre to hear prospective mayoral candidates
from the Right still talking about "Keeping Rates Low" as a campaign >>>feature - meantime clean water is needing a lot of money that 15%
rates rises is not enough to fund; and in some areas exempting farmers >>>from the effects of their water pollution is raising the costs for
towns and cities ''downstream" . . .
However the control of what is to be done resides where it always
should remain - with democratically-elected local bodies, paid for by >>ratepayers as each local body decides is best. Where I live we prefer >>local control by elected councilors in setting water rates. Every
such local body is required to submit a plan and my council has just >>published theirs.
This is part of the reason I oppose extending Parliamentary terms. It >>>>is also the reason why Labour cannot be trusted while the senior MPs >>>>from the 2020-2023 government are seeking re-election. Ardern was
just a part of this and has been dealt with by the voters in the >>>>appropriate manner.
--
Crash McBash
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:22:42 -0000 (UTC), TonyPost a direct response to the poster you are answering, stop this cowardly, childish act. You made a mistake and you are still trying to justify it. You failed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:It was a direct result of a lack of interest in tenders, a lack of
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 21:15:15 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:04:25 +1200, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:38:50 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:The initial response reflected the speed of transmission being
https://matuakahurangi.com/p/the-curtain-falls-on-the-cult-of >>>>>>Brutal maybe, but fair.
That article may be a fair review of Ardern's book but it is not a >>>>>fair review of her leadership as PM.
I give her the benefit of the doubt. While she at times presided over >>>>>substantial restrictions on our freedoms, this was done as part of >>>>>standard practice in response to pandemics. It was also done on the >>>>>advice of eminent health professionals. No-one has credibly >>>>>demonstrated Ardern had ill intent, and indeed what she did was mostly >>>>>supported by the opposition parties at the time (note that NZF were >>>>>not in Parliament at the time).
observed in China, and as you correctly state the initial response was >>>>in accordance with advice from public health experts. We saw much >>>>higher rates in cities like New York and Rome - with pictures of mass >>>>graves being formed by bulldozers in the USA. As evidence accumulated >>>>it became clear that transmission was more rapid than previous >>>>epidemics (eg SARS), but fatalities lower; the NZ response became one >>>>of keeping infections low through lock downs until vaccines became >>>>available - with the success of the lock downs however making some >>>>other countries getting slightly higher priority than NZ for getting >>>>initial mass doses for vaccination. The election results in October >>>>that year indicate widespread support at that stage for the Covid >>>>response - Labour was able to govern alone, and NZ First lost all of >>>>its seats. The subsidies for businesses led to very few companies >>>>folding and a return to previous GDP levels more quickly than most >>>>other countries - as well as much lower deaths than other countries. >>>>There were however a range of issues that led to a very divisive 2023 >>>>campaign, with massive spending by ACT and its Atlas connections on >>>>such things as the fake Groundswell "protests" supported by the >>>>Taxpayers Union.
When we pass judgment we do so withThe releasing of the lockdowns was closely linked to more complete >>>>vaccine coverage - morbidity did justify lockdowns for communities
hindsight that she never had at the time - Labour eventually decided >>>>>that Covid19 did not have morbidity effects that justified lockdowns >>>>>and other means of restricting our freedoms.
that had low vaccination rates.
The previous government under Key/English had not been able to get >>>>tenders adequate to cover costs, and there had been no finds to
Now Ardern did exhibit poor judgment (banning offshore fossil fuel >>>>>exploration) but all Prime Ministers do this and take the >>>>>consequences.
justify higher tenders from the industry. Essentially this is just >>>>noise; no company wants to pay the costs of drilling when there is >>>>little chance of finding oil . . ., and no government wants to meet
the costs of cleanup if a foreign tenderer just walks away . . .
If I were to adopt a ruse you frequently make I would congratulate you
on agreeing with me. But I did not and do not. The ban was a
'captains call' which you are now claiming was not needed. It was
made without consultation even within the Labour Caucus and
illustrates an 'I know best' trait in Ardern.
success in exploration in recent years, and the experience of the
government being responsible for clean up following companies walking
away - the previous government had not been able to achieve bids high
enough to cover the risks - the new Government had more sense, but it
now appears that NZ First (and Shane Jones in particular) just want to
reward a political donor and don't care about the cost - they know
there is a fair chance commitments will not be incurred before the
current coalition gets replaced anyway . . .
I am correct. It is fact that they knew the vaccine couldn't stop transmission, but stillFor example there is strong evidence from government sources and >>internationalOf course they knew that the vaccine would not stop transmission - but
documents proving they knew the vaccine couldn't stop transmission, but still >>used the “protect others” line to manipulate public behaviour.
it would reduce the rate of infection, which in turn would reduce
illness, transmission and deaths. That you are confused about Covid is
all about you, Tony - you are wrong yet again.
You are just lying.used the “protect others” line to manipulate public behaviour.
That is why the anti-vaccine idiots were so disruptive - and in turnNonsense.
why they were encouraged overtly by ACT and NZ First, and tolerated by >National. Remember Winston walking around at the Wellington "protest"
- which just happened to strain Wellington Hospital with Covid
infections . . .?
The restrictions on movement were entirely about reducingUnprovenn and now questioned internationally, don't worry, you will catch up one day.
transmission, and naturally that was more difficult with Auckland than
much of the rest of the country - population density made the problem
worse, but at the other end there was a problem achieving sufficient
coverage of vaccination in low density areas such as the far north.
Th vaccines do not reduce transmission at all, and you agreed to that above. Do try harder.Crash I respect what you have said here. However I am convinced, as are many, >>that Ardern and others in the government at that time did not make good >>decisions based on actual know;ledge and official opinions they were given >>and
were available.
It is not just hidsight, there were those at the time that questioned the >>science that was inaccurately used. For instance above concerning >>transmission,and "masks stop transmission", 2 metres distancing helps and >>other ill considered and scientifically unuppported notions. There was also >>no
attempt that was made public to balance the impact of the lockdows against >>the
effect of the illness - there was time to do that and it was not done.
Again you are wrong - masks and distancing do reduce transmission, but
not as well as an effective vaccine.
Covid in its various forms wasABsolute rubbish.
one of the most dangerous infections - particularly for the elderly or
those that have previously been infected.
Look at : >https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/for-health-professionals/data-and-statistics/covid-19-data/covid-19-current-cases#covid-19-cases-summaryABsolutelky meaningless - it ignores the alternatives and the damage that was done by the government,
During the period of the Covid response New Zealand experienced around
3,000 deaths, and many people think that it has gone away, but we have
now had about 4,670 deaths, and are still having an average of about
one death a day, and many reinfections, some leading to serious "long
Covid" ongoing health issues.
The New Zealand Government response is now believed to have saved
around 20,000 lives, when compared with the results of other
countries, particularly the USA and UK. Internationally we lost fewer
lives than nearly every other country
Labour also enacted major reforms of the way water
services would be delivered nationwide and the accompanying removal of >>>>>democratic control on this - with no mention of their intent prior to >>>>>the 2020 election.
The current government has just passed the cost on to local
authorities - it is bizarre to hear prospective mayoral candidates
from the Right still talking about "Keeping Rates Low" as a campaign >>>>feature - meantime clean water is needing a lot of money that 15%
rates rises is not enough to fund; and in some areas exempting farmers >>>>from the effects of their water pollution is raising the costs for >>>>towns and cities ''downstream" . . .
However the control of what is to be done resides where it always
should remain - with democratically-elected local bodies, paid for by >>>ratepayers as each local body decides is best. Where I live we prefer >>>local control by elected councilors in setting water rates. Every
such local body is required to submit a plan and my council has just >>>published theirs.
This is part of the reason I oppose extending Parliamentary terms. It >>>>>is also the reason why Labour cannot be trusted while the senior MPs >>>>>from the 2020-2023 government are seeking re-election. Ardern was >>>>>just a part of this and has been dealt with by the voters in the >>>>>appropriate manner.
--
Crash McBash
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 00:07:30 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,718 |